How Likely Are Ex-Offenders
to Get a Job Offer?
Research Notes
By Marilyn C. Moses
W
hen inmates are released
from prison, they face
seemingly insurmountable barriers to success
when reentering society. One could
argue that corrections professionals
also face overwhelming challenges in
this regard. They are tasked with remedying, in a relatively short period of
time, the result of long-standing
human limitations and the collateral
consequences associated with failed
public health, child welfare, education
and criminal justice systems. The following three studies funded by the
National Institute of Justice highlight
the difficulties that ex-offenders face
when applying for jobs post-release.
The studies found that despite the
hard skills job applicants had, race
played a significant factor in their rate
of hire.
Audit Studies
In 1968, the Fair Housing Act
became law. The legislation’s goal was
to ensure that all individuals have an
equal opportunity to live in the neighborhood of their choice. In 1975, the
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) solicited ideas
about how to effectively measure
housing discrimination. Two years
later, HUD pioneered audit studies as
a way to test for discrimination. Since
then, the audit method has also been
used to test for discrimination in
employment.
An audit study involves sending
out two nearly identical people (called
auditors or testers), varying in only
one characteristic (e.g., race, ethnic
group) to determine if there is a discriminatory response to the pair
based on the selected characteristic.
Audits are “live” tests such as entering
a restaurant seeking service, or going
on an in-person job interview. Devah
Pager, currently at Harvard, uses this
method to test the role that race and
criminal record play in an employer’s
decision to hire. Funded partially by
NIJ, Pager conducted employment
audits in Milwaukee and New York
City in 2001 and 2004 respectively.1 A
third study, funded by NIJ and conducted in 2012 by researchers at Arizona
State University in Phoenix, replicated
Pager’s earlier studies.2
Table 1. Study Profiles
Three Cities, Similar
Results
Testers posing with and without a
criminal record applied for more than
850 entry-level jobs in three cities.
Although the economic, demographic
and legislative environments differed
in these cities, the results of the tests
were remarkably similar.
Milwaukee. In Milwaukee, two
teams of college-educated males (one
team with two black males and one
team with two white males) were
formed to be as physically identical
as possible (e.g., attractiveness,
height, weight). These “actors” were
trained to apply for entry-level positions under audit study conditions.
Within each racial pair, the testers
were randomly assigned to pose as
ex-offenders and were provided fictitious work histories. A “callback” for
an interview or a job offer was the
outcome measured. Three hundred
fifty in-person job applications were
completed by the auditors. A criminal record reduced a white applicant’s
probability of getting a callback by 50
percent. Blacks indicating a criminal
past had more severe results. Their
chance of getting a job offer was
reduced by 65 percent. Most disturbing, however, was that employers
called back white ex-offenders at
about the same rate as blacks who
reported no criminal record. Both
had approximately a 17 percent
chance of a follow-up call.
New York City. Pager repeated
the experiment in New York City. 3
Here, the four testers (two white
males and two black males) applied
for 250 low-wage positions. White
men without a criminal record
received a higher rate of callbacks
(31 percent) than their black peers
(25 percent). All applicants posing as
ex-offenders were penalized. However, a white candidate’s chance of getting a callback was reduced by 30
percent, while a black applicant was
penalized twice as much (60 percent)
for having a criminal past. As in Milwaukee, a black nonoffender had
about the same chance of receiving a
job offer (25 percent) as a white exoffender (22 percent).
Phoenix. Scott Decker and his colleagues from Arizona State University
repeated the study a third time in
Phoenix. Here, the two auditing
teams each had three individuals
(Hispanic, black and white). These
auditors submitted 266 job applications. As in the prior audit studies,
the penalty for a criminal record was
not evenly assessed across all applicants. Hispanic men, regardless of
criminal background, received no
callbacks from employers.4 Whites
Table 2. Probability of a Callback (Reported in Percentages)
* NCR = no criminal record; CR = criminal record
** Hispanics were included in this audit study, but the teams were not configured as they
were in Phoenix. Hence, the results of this test are not discussed here. The New York study
also involved other team configurations. Black and Hispanic male nonoffender pairs were
fielded along with white testers posing as ex-offenders.
without a criminal record had the
best chance of getting a callback.
While white nonoffenders were more
likely than blacks without a criminal
record to get a job offer, white males
were penalized for their criminal
record more severely (55 percent)
than their black counterparts (43 percent). Blacks without a criminal
record in Phoenix, unlike those in
New York and Milwaukee, had significantly better odds of receiving a job
offer than white ex-offenders.
These studies
provide empirical
dimensions to the
theory that
discrimination
against ex-offenders
and those of color
— particularly black
men — exists.
Study Implications
Practitioners and advocates, relying in part on their interpretation of
these study findings, have convinced
policymakers to make reforms. Various changes were implemented
across the country with the hope of
increasing the odds that ex-offenders
could at least get their foot in the
employer’s door for an interview.
One such change is known as “ban
the box.”5 Approximately 10 states
and 56 cities and counties have eliminated the criminal history question
from applications for public employment — thus, they have “banned the
box.” 6 If the job seeker is deemed
desirable, questions about the candidate’s criminal history may be considered when an employment offer is
contemplated.
On a national level, since 1987, the
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has maintained the
position that discriminating against
those with criminal records can have
an adverse impact on blacks and Hispanics because of their disproportionate presence in the criminal justice system. Reinforced by some of
the research discussed here, in 2012,
EEOC issued updated guidance to
employers regarding the use of criminal background checks in hiring decisions.7
Future Research
These studies provide empirical
dimensions to the theory that discrimination against ex-offenders and
those of color — particularly black
men — exists. Now, the question is,
what should advocates, practitioners
and policymakers do to move forward? How will we know whether the
policy response helps or hurts exoffenders?
The testers in these studies were
the “cream of the crop.” If these
attractive, confident and well-trained
actors received such a poor response
from employers, what is the likelihood that “real” ex-offenders will
receive a job offer? What about the
repeat offender? What is their probability of receiving a job offer? Possession of cocaine with intent to
distribute was the offense tested in
these studies. Would the result be
the same for offenders convicted of
burglary, rape or homicide? Is “once
a felon, always a felon” the employer’s
view? Is the likelihood of receiving a
job offer the same for an offender
after he or she has remained crimefree for 10 years? Unless advocates,
practitioners and policymakers
demand funding for rigorous
research and evaluation, we will not
find the answers to these questions.
ENDNOTES
1
Pager, D. 2003. The mark of a criminal
record. American Journal of Sociology,
108(5):937-75.
Pager, D., B. Western and B. Bonikowski.
2009. Discrimination in a low-wage market: A field experiment. American Sociological Review, 74(5):777-799.
Pager, D., B. Western and N. Sugie. 2009.
Sequencing disadvantage: Barriers to
employment facing young black and white
men with criminal records. The Annals of
Political and Social Science, 623(1):195213.
2
Decker, S.H., C. Spohn, N. Ortiz and E.
Hedberg. 2014. Criminal stigma, race, gender and employment: An expanded
assessment of the consequences of
imprisonment for employment. Unpublished Report. Retrieved from https://
www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/244756
.pdf. Also note: This study at Arizona
State University added Hispanics, women,
a community college degree and the
online job application to their audit protocol. This article focuses solely on that portion of their study that replicated the two
prior studies versus the added variables.
3
Ibid.
4
It is believed that these results may be
due to regional and political characteristics. Arizona is a border state that has
experienced a high rate of illegal immigration, and those living in this area have
experienced Hispanic gang violence and
drug wars. This may have resulted in an
employer perception that the Hispanic
male is the least desirable prospective
employee.
5
Henry, J.S. 2007. Ban the box to promote
ex-offender employment. Criminology and
Public Policy, 6(4):755-761.
Henry, J.S. 2008. Criminal history on a
“need to know” basis: Employment policies that eliminate the criminal history
box on employment applications. Justice
Policy Journal, 5(2):1-22.
6
National Employment Law Project. 2014.
Ban the box: Major U.S. cities and counties
adopt fair hiring policies to remove unfair
barriers to employment of people with criminal records. New York: Author. Retrieved
from http://www.nelp.org/page/-SCLP/
CityandCountyHiringInitiatives.pdf?nocdn
=1.
7
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission. 2012. Enforcement guidance
on the consideration of arrest and criminal
conviction records in employment decisions
under Title VII of the civil rights act of 1964,
as amended. Washington, D.C.: Author.
Marilyn C. Moses is a social science
analyst for the U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice (NIJ).
Points of view in this article are those
of the author and do not necessarily
represent the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
The research reported here was
supported by NIJ grant numbers: 2002IJ-CX-0002, 2005-IJ-CX-0019 and 2010MU-MU-0004.